The Difficulty Behind Grand Strategy Game Design -- Critical Thought 

Do you know of any material I could learn on how to program a grand strategy game? I would like to eventually try to develop one but have not been able to find an information how to do so.

@@silverrain530 No sorry, I have just played a couple of them for inspiration. I am making it with a hexagon map in Unity, but it is very difficult. So, I would recommend starting with a small strategy game; say with only tanks.

@@mikaxms I'm fairly new to game design so I wasn't expecting to make the next Total War or Civ or anything but I'd like to learn how the general process works. Thanks for the answer

I’ve played loads of grand strategy games and I’ve never used the tutorials so you don’t have to stress over it

Same I'm trying to make it to where it is simple to play however still have things which show country ideolagies

Sjwaria Law I’m pretty sure they use C# with their in-house engine.

while not 100% related. When I was trying to learn Dead by Daylight after failing the first time, I watched as many high level plays of killers that I could to study the general strategies and moment to moment of how a match played out. Listening to people talk about how a survivor would do X, and what to watch out for, helped me greatly.

thanks for watching, best of luck with it and when the time comes, I'm always looking for games to show off here on the channel.

@@Game-wisdom will do.

I think the problem with individual systems is that it doesn't really explain to someone what they should be doing as a whole. I've said this before, but a good tutorial needs to explain, "What I'm doing, How do I do it, and Why am I Doing it." Showing someone how to click economy sliders or moving infantry around doesn't help them build up a framework for how a game is played. Another problem is that most 4X games never just happen over one turn. Everyone raise your hand if you ever made a mistake that didn't hit you until a dozen or so turns later. And that makes it impossible as a new player to know why they lost.

+Game-Wisdom Thats why I suggested tutorializing systems in isolation.

Would bore crap out of anyone who plays strategy games, would not catch attention of action packed reflex based games crowd. I've already have a problem with tutorials holding so much hand that I get bored with "strategy" game where everything is so crafted there is no strategy, only linear "puzzle with solution printed out" gameplay.

+MrElrood Im not suggesting handholdy tutorial bullshit. Im suggesting a story campaign where the systems only get introduced one by one. Citybuilders and tycoon games already do it

Here is the thing - citybuilders and tycoon games are often enforcing on reenacting whole stuff over and over again. Like settlers, every game you get a bit further, but you need to redo all basic stuff. I much more like civilization and factorio approach - where you are introduced to each mechanic in time (in civ with technology and exploration, in factorio with unlocking more powerfull technologies) and if you mess something up you can in normal game recover and play forward without restarting and learning from the begging. Settler (and tutorials) are introducing one mechanic at the time, but at the same time are forcing repetition of already learned stuff. you don't have a choice "did i mess up enough to not be able to progress", you have "okey, checkpoint, rise and repeat". This is why imho story campaign doesn't have much sense in a lot of games and with really complex systemic game (Distant Worlds very good example) you have huge problems, especially with cutting it to each size so its engaging and interesting + manageable. Now that i think about it, Imperium Galactica 1 did what you said, but even then imho it felt as hand holding and constricting system (and didn't work that well in the long run). Well, it turned into a rant :) Tldr - I don't know any game that made it right for me, either killing replay-ability or killing fun from story campaign. Edit: Actually Battle Fleet Gothic 2 Armada is attempting to do something similar. Not yet sure how i feel about it. Probably the best attempt up to date, but i will hold myself right to revise it when i play a lot more of it.

AARs are always good for trying to learn games, and really are a good basis for building a tutorial around, as you need to be able to learn not just how to do something but the thought process of being able to play it.

question for you my friend, from a fellow lover of the paradox games. Started with ck2 and have played everything since. If you had a game where your government and technology developed organically depends on the decisions and actions you make whilst maintaining an rts style as well as giving a relevant way of customisation of soldiers and a tacitical element. what would you think? I mean it's just a pipe dream of mine with the coding ability of me doing python for 3D data analysis and that's it. I think I have a good idea, just no clue on the scope or the ability to really even start.

Maybe some day I'll find a grand strategy game that I can learn, but it hasn't happened yet

The problem is that for new players starting at 0 understanding, they need something as a foundation to build off of or any discussions of mechanics is going to go over their heads.

@@Game-wisdom I think the simplest solution to that is to explain the mechanics, then teach them the basic principles of strategy, not simply strategy for the game, as that is nearly impossible to do, but the actual principles of strategy for the areas that are in the game, for example in the case of a game like CK2 or HoI4, you might teach how to judge where to strike based on locations of enemy troops as well as terrain, in a game with a complex economic system, teach the mechanics, then teach the basic principles of managing an economy. This is how I'd do it anyway, though you should only teach the basics as rarely does strategy IRL fully apply to a game.

@@titanama0574 The challenge is getting the person to understand the methodology of how you play the game. I would think that structuring the tutorial almost like a quasi let's play may be a possible solution: so that the person is seeing in real-time what they need to do in order to play the game and use these systems.

@@Game-wisdom that would work and well, as people already use let's plays to learn games. I actually learned the more in depth strategies in paradox's games from let's plays.

But in order for the player to understand the rules and systems, they need to know what they're building towards and that's where a lot of grand strategy design tends to fail at onboarding. It's not about telling the player "do this and you win" but "you are trying to do X, and these will help you." Balatro blowing up among non roguelike fans is a big example of how much you can stack complexity onto something if the core gameplay is simple enough to learn. In it, your goal is to get a lot of chips, and how you do that is going to be dependent on the cards you play and the jokers you get. Each joker is incredibly easy to understand what it does at the base level, but the interactions and dynamics that evolve from them are where the game becomes complex. For many grand strategy titles, the onboarding goes "build this, build this, build this, move here, tutorial complete." But that doesn't explain why they should be building these, what's the difference between building X vs. Y, why would I want X or Y, if I get a popup saying that something is wrong, how do I fix it?

Exactly, hearts of iron 4 is the best example. Once you have played it long enought or watched it log enought you will see process behind the things. In HoI4 it is the fact that the alliances have allways the same following. Allies playing world police, and you just trying to grab the most of it. Certain countries just having no endings buffs likes Nazi Germany making it allways one of those that will either run all over or just die. In fact i would claim that the more grand strategy the game is, the more flaws it has in all in its systems. Once you go to play the small minigames in these different parts of the games, ressources managment in solaris, or the avation parts of hearts of iron 4 you will notice how borring they realy are... In fact any game with time you will notice certain things. Like in Chess developing pieces, or taking the center, the advantage of certain pieces in different parts of the game. Like Bishops in the endgame with few paws. While knights can be stronger in the endgame, if the paws are blocking the bishops colors and stuff. Even in game that are real time strategy you can argue for grand strategy elements. Starcraft Broodwar/ Remastered has a neverending depth thx to importance and longevity of its existence, similar to chess. The development of your skills in the relativly short games in process of the time you interact with the game. Be it the way and order your send your workers to mine on different maps for the better opimization of your mining. The base layout on different maps for fastest macro without disturbing macro, while defending your base. Army compotion and execution. Than the different strategies you encounter that you recounter that are currently used all in connection with the skill and ability you possess. Though in single player these different games can become borring because the ai is not able to keep up and has got a similar interface as we do, since it isnt a human and more often not exactly has different abilities to adapt, but just exectues the sames responces every single time without thought. The multiplayer of these different games in fact is very similar to a grand strategy game. And differently to the grand strategy game multiplayer isnt one session that isnt over once one player leaves loses connection or takes 3 hours to just beginn the game.